A good u-turn by Christchurch Council

Beachside Christchurch residents are celebrating “democracy at its best” after a plan to deal with long-term flooding and erosion risk was dropped.

In a press conference on Tuesday, Environment Minister Nick Smith and Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel announced that plan changes affecting property owners as a consequence of future coastal hazards would be dealt with through normal planning processes and not through the fast-tracked District Plan review process.

The Christchurch City Council sparked anger and anxiety among coastal property owners in July when an assessment it commissioned of the long-term threat posed by sea level rise identified 6000 properties that could be susceptible to erosion and nearly 18,000 that could face coastal inundation over the next 50 to 100 years.

The council immediately amended Land Information Memorandums for those properties to indicate they were in a coastal hazard zone and announced it was proposing through the Replacement Christchurch District Plan (RCDP) to limit new development in the areas considered most at risk.

That sparked concern people would not be able to develop their properties, values in coastal areas would dive and it would become harder and more costly to get insurance.

Christchurch Coastal Residents United spokesman Tim Sintes said the decision to step back was “fantastic news”.

“To get a result like this, it’s democracy at it’s best.

“It has to go this way, with a national standard, rather than ticking off one town after another.”

The issue of sea level rise is a complex one, and not one Councils should be doing in isolation, and rushing through.

Smith said Christchurch had enough on its plate and did not need to have the added burden of leading the country and the world on how to deal with the issue of climate change and sea level rise.

The Government was proposing both legislative changes and national policy guidance on such hazards as part of its Resource Management Act reform programme.

“More time will also allow contestable advice and normal appeal rights to the Environment Court. It makes sense for the timing of this work to be aligned with national policy. I am satisfied that the existing plans provide adequate interim measures to deal with these risks in the immediate future,” Smith said.

We have robust data showing there has been sea level increases in NZ. From 1900 to 2000 the sea level in Auckland increased 16 cm, or 1.6 mm a year. While this rate has been increasing globally, in Auckland it does not yet appear to be accelerating. It will to some degree, but we don’t know to what degree. And hence rushing through LIM notations on properties when the data is not yet clear, is unwise.

Comments (15)

labrator

You’re more likely to have sea levels affect your low lying property due to an earthquake than due to long term sea level rises. Imagine if WCC were doing this, they’d have to write off the airport! The island of Miramar is barely 150 years a peninsula.

Fuglybud

The greens with numbers, like sea levels, make Volkswagen look like amateurs when it comes to “man made” data. Best thing to do with sea level rise is have another look in about 50 years and see if we are experiencing a problem. Computer models used in all green forecasting have no credibility and have never been validated or come close to satisfying statistical principles.

tas

Good grief! Rising sea levels are not a concern within our lifetimes and therefore should not preoccupy the city council. It’s not in the city council’s purview – they may as well have a policy on space exploration.

A much more serious threat is storm surges or tsunamis. Councils should be much more focused on those issues.

labrator

@maggy it’s splitting hairs as to whether a tombolo connects to an island or whether it’s an isthumus. The point simply was that earthquakes have the ability to rapidly change the earth in such a way as to make fancy projections about rising sea levels mostly redundant. Hell look at the super storm that hit New York a few years back. Living by the coast has elements of danger. Rising sea levels, in the order of millimetres, have got to be one of the lowest risks to the people that live there and councils prioritising it are idiotic.

Jigsaw

Our council is planning a subdivision on land that is barely 1 metre above sea level- is this sensible? How can local authorities have rules about building where there is supposed to be sea level rise and then sell sections within the zone? That’s the problem about climate change and the people who have predicted a sea level rise of 3 metres by the end of this century-either that are right or they are wrong. Checking out their predictions from even 20 years ago would seem to imply that they have no idea what they are talking about. Besides as someone has already pointed out the land is alter in level anyway. I understand the South island especially is sinking more on the east coast that the west. In a discussion in RNZ I heard a woman claim that the Flockton basin was a result of global warming when of course it’s a result of the earthquakes.

waikatosinger

While this rate has been increasing globally, in Auckland it does not yet appear to be accelerating.

Do you have a source for the “rate has been increasing globally” part of this statement?
As far as I know no global acceleration in sea level rise has yet been detected although
people have been searching for signs of it assiduously.

ben

I can understand why councils are responding to higher future sea levels this way (banning development) if they are worried about long term liability falling on council.

But banning all development is not the right approach.

The correct approach is to declare land owners, not councils, bear the risk of future sea level rises – and then get out of the way. Lock that in legislation if necessary.

Even if some land becomes uninhabitable in 100 years, there is (gross) value in that land being used between now and then. There is also risk. That value and risk varies for each and every lot. So the problem is complex.

Who is best placed to weigh up those costs and risks for a particular piece of land? The land owner, provided it is they -not council – who bears the downside risk.

A blanket ban is plainly a third best approach. Here’s a place where property rights, property markets and insurance markets have application in solving a deeply complex problem. Local government is pushing in exactly the wrong direction here.

Crusader

My Christchurch property in the Port Hills has risen by something in the order of 400 mm during my ownership (most of it abruptly in 2011). At this rate, I am not too worried about the prospect of 80mm sea level rise over my potential life span of the next 50 years. Earthquake is more of a threat – as are numerous other hazards.

ben

Well if earthquake is the bigger risk, and I dont doubt it might be, a consistent application of the council’s idiotic principle of banning development where there is risk would see them shut down Canterbury.

markm

Rodney

You are correct and now after removing the limited right of appeal , council staff have circulated a memorandum among planners telling them they must use the rules that were to go throughout the planning process ,but now are not.

They have managed to dupe the Government and 46000 residents , and get their way .all at the same time.